WikiLeaks: ‘Asides’ of diplomacy

A common trick used in drama, whether Shakespeare, Bob Hope (his "Road" movies), or Woody Allen, is an "aside", which is a dialogue an actor delivers to the audience; his friend on the stage supposedly does not hear it. It establishes direct rapport with the audience giving them a glimpse of the actor, and even some hint as to what is coming.

"WikiLeaks" are the great "asides" of diplomacy today. Cleverly crafted, but not always so perfectly delivered. It is a great mind game. It can upset the negotiator’s strategy. Even his commitment to his approach. He may laugh it off, but he sure may miss out on his confidence. It gives the initial player enough scope to judge the response for his next move. It can even split the opposite party into rival camps. The phenomenon is just about six months old, but as named, it is wicked. It is also the work of a genius. Currently, the source of such insinuations is a single country, with much of Europe and Asian countries at the receiving end. Though the revelations have been condemned by the US, the hurt passed on to some of its own allies may not be fair, but more importantly, is tactically premature. There could be reasons why a superpower is unable to negotiate such tactics.

These are times of the ultimate. Ultimate aggression, ultimate sanctions, commitment, trust, and ultimate distrust. The three international modes of negotiations: diplomacy, trade, and military action are stretched to the full between any two countries or a group of countries. The results can come only if there are results to be had. Beyond a point diplomacy has little to offer. One can’t have trade beyond the capacity of the trading partner. The same holds true for armed aggression. You finally have to take charge, and put a better order in place, if that be the intention. As one of my favourite professors would say "the juice-to-squeeze ratio" is no longer acceptable.

Contracts and treaties these days are made for the hour, the week, for the particular campaign. Even while these are being made, there may be simultaneous agreements on other fronts with variable allies that may actually violate the main deal in question. Nations have a way of backing out by throwing the burden on their respective protocols, legislative hurdles or regional exigencies. A novel method now is to leak out your preparatory scepticism through another web- based source. The message is conveyed, and the expectations from the contract become subject to the realization of other variables.

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave little time to the other superpower to adjust to a multi-intended foreign policy towards the rest of the world. The need to reformulate a policy as per region, communities, and nationalities probably never came up for serious consideration. The hangover of the obsessions to counter a formidable enemy was translated into the myopic duality of "allies" and "foes", overlooking the essence, that what was left to be dealt with was a world with countries to negotiate with, not countries that were to be forced to fall in line.

Ever since the Kuwait crisis, the US seemed to be more and more engaged in the Middle East, without being able to settle pending issues. Iraq became an inevitable invitee, and Afghanistan was to follow 9/11. The compulsion to flex military muscles took the better of diplomatic manoeuvres. I am not an authority here, but in neurology they tell you to tap the hammer gently on a spastic knee, or the foot will most likely your groin. Some time half a decade ago, and 5,000 miles towards west, most matters could have been settled better than what may be possible now. Some friends were lost, and old enmities with Iran and Korea were renewed. Not that these would have been forgotten, but the confrontations could have been timed and sequenced for convenience.

The worst part is that the superpower is now alienating its European allies. The distraction, if any, could have been left alone for a while.

Every culture has a platform where the so-called subordinates have a day to comment on their seniors. In India, students do it on Teacher’s Day, they have St Peter’s Day in the Netherlands, and supposedly most college graduation ceremonies in the US allow the students to express their remarks before the faculty in an acceptable way. The fact is, everyone more or less has an idea where he stands in terms of his profession as well as popularity. The same is true with world leaders.

WikiLeaks, in its second instalment, smacks of manipulation at the cost of positive diplomacy. It is a low act to insinuate the reputation of the world and its leaders. The US has condemned it, but the question remains how so much of classified information gets web-dumped periodically, and how so much more can be predicted. The wise need not encourage everyone else into craftiness. It erodes credibility, evokes resistance and confounds the purpose.

A perpetuated lie may get the semblance of truth, but too many half truths convert into a pack of lies.

The world will have its rivals and its bitterness. There are ways to settle them. Decided guidelines of negotiations are acceptable. Cleverness and manipulation sometimes have the opposite effect.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Author

Anoop Kohli is a senior consultant neurologist at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. His interests go far beyond his chosen profession. For him, it's just one game of life so interesting to study for all its themes and aberrations. He also dabbles in script-writing and recently got a membership of the Bombay Film Writers' Association. In this blog, Masquerader, expect from him anything from H1N1 to Heena.